Cerita itu

Bagaimana Cukai Pendapatan Negara Bermula Di bawah Presiden Taft

Bagaimana Cukai Pendapatan Negara Bermula Di bawah Presiden Taft


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Setiap tahun, berjuta-juta orang Amerika harus mengumpulkan rekod kewangan mereka dan mengisi borang-atau membayar profesional untuk melakukannya untuk mereka untuk mengemukakan penyata cukai persekutuan mereka. Ini adalah ritual tahunan yang secara tradisional berlangsung pada musim bunga, walaupun pada tahun 2020, Internal Revenue Service menunda tarikh akhir pengajuan 15 April selama tiga bulan, kerana gangguan yang disebabkan oleh wabak virus COVID-19.

Bagi mereka yang menggerutu kerana harus memikirkan kotak bernombor di IRS Form 1040, mereka harus mengucapkan terima kasih kepada William Howard Taft. Presiden ke-27 negara, yang hanya berkhidmat satu penggal dari tahun 1909 hingga 1913, mungkin paling terkenal sebagai presiden terberat dalam sejarah A.S. dan juga yang pertama menaiki limusin presiden rasmi, dan kerana obsesinya dengan golf. Tetapi Taft juga menetapkan cukai pendapatan persekutuan sebagai bahagian tetap dalam kehidupan orang Amerika.

BACA LEBIH LANJUT: Mengapa Kami Membayar Cukai

Abraham Lincoln Pertama mengenakan Cukai Pendapatan

Taft sebenarnya tidak mencipta idea tentang cukai pendapatan persekutuan. Itulah Abraham Lincoln, yang pada tahun 1861 meyakinkan Kongres untuk meluluskan Akta Hasil dan mengenakan cukai sementara sebanyak 3 persen ke atas pendapatan lebih dari $ 800, sebagai langkah darurat untuk membantu membiayai perbelanjaan ketenteraan besar yang diperlukan oleh Perang Saudara. Langkah itu dibenarkan untuk berakhir pada tahun 1872.

Idea cukai pendapatan persekutuan muncul kembali setelah Panik tahun 1893, kemerosotan ekonomi yang sangat teruk sehingga menyebabkan seperempat tenaga kerja negara kehilangan pekerjaan. Seperti yang dicatat oleh Jeffrey Rosen dalam biografi Taft pada tahun 2018, Demokrat populis berpendapat bahawa tarif dan cukai eksais yang ditanggung oleh pemerintah untuk mendapatkan hasil memberi beban yang tidak seimbang kepada petani dan pekerja yang berjuang, dan berhujah untuk cukai yang akan menangkap lebih banyak orang Amerika yang kaya raya ' pendapatan.

Pada tahun 1894, mereka bergabung dengan Republik progresif untuk meluluskan undang-undang yang membuat pajak 2 persen atas pendapatan lebih dari $ 4.000, bersama dengan penurunan tarif. Tetapi cukai itu tidak bertahan lama Dalam kes tahun 1895, Syarikat Pinjaman dan Kepercayaan Petani v. Petani, Mahkamah Agung mendapati bahawa secara langsung mencukai pendapatan orang Amerika adalah tidak berperlembagaan.

Walaupun begitu, hasrat progresif untuk mengeluarkan cukai pendapatan dan mengurangkan cukai import dan cukai penjualan tidak hilang. Ketika Taft menggantikan Theodore Roosevelt sebagai presiden pada tahun 1909, dia menghadapi dilema.

"Taft adalah Republikan yang progresif dengan naluri sederhana," Joseph J. Thorndike, pengarah Projek Sejarah Pajak dan pengarang banyak buku dan artikel mengenai sejarah percukaian Amerika, menjelaskan. "Dia juga seorang institusi, terutama berkaitan dengan Mahkamah Agung."

Konservatif Ditentang Menjadikan Cukai Pendapatan Tetap

Thorndike menjelaskan bahawa pada tahun 1909, Taft bimbang bahawa penggubal undang-undang di kedua-dua pihak akan meneruskan rancangan untuk cukai pendapatan baru, mengabaikan keputusan pengadilan tahun 1895 bahawa cukai seperti itu (sekurang-kurangnya seperti yang dikandung sebelumnya) tidak berperlembagaan. Taft percaya bahawa memberlakukan cukai tersebut boleh merosakkan wewenang pengadilan.

Perbahasan berlaku lagi di Kongres, dengan Demokrat dan Republikan progresif bersatu untuk menyokong cukai pendapatan baru, sementara pemimpin GOP di Dewan dan Senat tetap menentang gagasan itu.

"Walaupun sokongan untuk pajak penghasilan cenderung ke arah Demokratik, ada sejumlah besar Republikan yang juga mendukung retribusi itu," kata Thorndike.

Taft telah terpilih sebagian kerana orang melihatnya sebagai meneruskan reformasi progresif yang telah dimulakan oleh Roosevelt, tetapi dia bukan peminat besar yang membuat orang Amerika membayar cukai pendapatan peribadi sebagai cara untuk "menahan kekayaan besar secara kekal," seperti yang ditulis oleh Rosen. Sebaliknya, dia melihat cukai pendapatan peribadi sebagai kekuatan yang seharusnya hanya digunakan dalam keadaan darurat, seperti masa perang. Taft juga bimbang bahawa warganegara yang menentang percukaian peribadi mungkin enggan membayar dan kemudian melakukan sumpah palsu untuk menghindari undang-undang.

"Saya tidak fikir Taft sangat bersemangat dengan cukai pendapatan, tetapi dia sedar bahawa ia mempunyai sokongan luas di kedua-dua pihak," kata Thorndike.

Walaupun demikian, Taft melihat cukai pendapatan peribadi sebagai langkah politik yang akan membantunya untuk mendapatkan Kongres untuk mendapatkan cukai perniagaan yang dia perlukan untuk menggantikan pendapatan tarif, menurut David Sicilia, seorang profesor sejarah bersekutu di University of Maryland yang ditulis mengenai asal usul cukai pendapatan persekutuan.

Mengenai Ketetapan Mahkamah Agung

"Matlamat Taft dengan cukai pendapatan persekutuan adalah pembaharuan tarif dan cukai korporat," kata Sicilia. "Tetapi perdagangan kuda politik dan negara yang semakin maju memberi kita sesuatu yang sangat berbeza."

Untuk mendapatkan apa yang dia perlukan, Taft harus mencari jalan di Mahkamah Agung. Jika tidak, Taft takut bahawa Kongres hanya akan meluluskan rang undang-undang cukai yang lain dan dicabul oleh hakim. Dia menemukan solusi cerdas — menggabungkan undang-undang pengurangan tarif dengan pindaan Perlembagaan yang mengizinkan pemerintah persekutuan untuk memungut cukai pendapatan, yang tidak dapat dibatalkan oleh pengadilan.

Sebilangan penentang cukai konservatif di Kongres benar-benar mengikuti idea Taft — nampaknya kerana mereka menyangka akan mati ketika tiba. Pada bulan Julai 1909, Kongres meluluskan Pindaan Perlembagaan ke-16.

Yang mengejutkan para konservatif, pindaan itu telah disetujui oleh badan perundangan negeri yang cukup sehingga pada bulan Februari 1913, Setiausaha Negara A.S. Philander Knox mengesahkan penggunaan pindaan tersebut. Tidak lama selepas itu, Kongres memberlakukan cukai pendapatan persekutuan.

"Rencana Taft berjaya - mungkin terlalu baik, dari perspektif banyak konservatif," kata Thorndike.

Pada mulanya, Kebanyakan orang Amerika Tidak Membayar Cukai

MENONTON: Mengapa Membayar Cukai? Dolar Anda di Tempat Kerja

Seperti yang diperincikan oleh W. Elliot Brownlee dalam bukunya Percukaian Persekutuan di Amerika: Sejarah Singkat, cukai menetapkan kadar dasar 1 peratus cukai ke atas pendapatan peribadi, tetapi juga menetapkan pengecualian peribadi sebanyak $ 3,000 yang mengecualikan hampir keseluruhan kelas menengah. Untuk pendapatan melebihi $ 20,000, ia dikenakan tambahan hingga 6 peratus. Selama beberapa tahun pertama cukai, hanya 2 peratus isi rumah A.S. membayar cukai. (Inilah borang cukai pendapatan persekutuan pertama dari Arkib Negara.)

Pada mulanya, hari cukai persekutuan adalah 1 Mac, tetapi pada tahun 1918, Kongres mengubahnya menjadi 15 Mac. Pada tahun 1955, Kongres memindahkannya kembali sebulan lagi, hingga 15 April. sama sekali belum pernah terjadi sebelumnya. Pada tahun 1980, Kongres memberi keluarga sandera Iran waktu tambahan untuk mengajukan pulangan mereka, dan pada tahun 1992, perpanjangan serupa mengenai bentuk dan pembayaran cukai diberikan kepada beberapa pembayar pajak Los Angeles yang terkena dampak rusuhan di kota itu.


Kisah Dua Pemotongan Cukai: Apa yang diajarkan oleh sejarah terkini mengenai kemelesetan dan dasar ekonomi

Oleh kerana pertumbuhan yang perlahan berterusan dalam ekonomi A.S., salah satu persoalan yang ditanyakan oleh pembuat dasar ialah adakah pemotongan cukai dapat digunakan untuk mencegah kemelesetan dan, jika demikian, bagaimana. Pentadbiran Bush mendakwa bahawa cadangan pemotongan cukai (dibuat lebih dari setahun yang lalu) adalah benteng terbaik untuk menentang kelembapan ekonomi. Oleh kerana penyokong pemotongan cukai seperti itu sering menggunakan preseden sejarah, seperti dasar fiskal presiden masa lalu, perlu melihat percubaan sebelumnya untuk mengurangkan kemelesetan melalui dasar cukai. Perbandingan dekat dengan percubaan lain untuk memerangi kemelesetan dengan pemotongan cukai-satu yang digubal oleh Presiden Gerald Ford pada tahun 1975 dan yang lain oleh Presiden Ronald Reagan pada tahun 1981-menunjukkan bahawa pendekatan yang mendorong peningkatan penggunaan oleh keluarga berpendapatan sederhana dan rendah telah memberikan yang terbesar meningkatkan ekonomi negara.

Republikan masa kini, bagaimanapun, mempromosikan pemotongan cukai yang secara tidak proporsional memberi keuntungan kepada mereka yang berpendapatan tinggi, alasannya bahawa ini akan merangsang ekonomi dengan meningkatkan simpanan dan pelaburan. Pengkritik pemotongan ini memilih pemotongan cukai keseluruhan yang lebih kecil dengan tumpuan yang lebih besar kepada pelepasan bagi individu berpendapatan rendah, keluarga berpendapatan rendah dan pertengahan ini, pengkritik berpendapat, yang kemungkinan besar akan membelanjakan apa-apa pendapatan tambahan dan seterusnya merangsang ekonomi. Melihat sejarah terkini menyokong tuntutan tersebut.

Dua kemelesetan utama baru-baru ini-1974-75 dan 1981-82-disertai oleh pemotongan cukai yang dipimpin oleh Republikan yang sangat berbeza antara satu sama lain dari segi siapa yang mendapat keuntungan dan dalam fokus jangka panjang berbanding jangka pendek mereka. Pemotongan cukai Presiden Ford & # 8217 pada tahun 1975 disasarkan kepada keluarga berpendapatan rendah dan sederhana dan membantu merangsang penggunaan swasta, meletakkan ekonomi kembali bangkit. Sebagai perbandingan, pemotongan cukai Presiden Reagan pada tahun 1981 secara tidak proporsional menguntungkan mereka yang berada di puncak skala pendapatan dan akhirnya tidak melakukan apa-apa untuk ekonomi yang merosot sehingga 1983.1

Strategi kemenangan Ford & # 8217s (1974-75)

Pada tahun 1974, ekonomi Amerika Syarikat jatuh ke dalam kemelesetan yang mendalam. Pengangguran meningkat dari 4.8% pada suku keempat 1973 menjadi 8.9% pada suku kedua 1975. Selama lebih lima suku (dari akhir 1973 hingga Mac 1975) KDNK sebenar per kapita turun pada kadar tahunan 3.8%. 2 Sebagai tindak balas, Presiden Ford mengusulkan pemotongan cukai yang besar pada awal tahun 1975, yang diluluskan oleh Kongres pada bulan Mac tahun itu.

Pemotongan cukai Presiden Ford & # 8217 jelas tertumpu pada peningkatan penggunaan. Kadar marginal tidak dipotong, dan sebaliknya semua pembayar cukai dan tanggungan mereka menerima kredit sebanyak $ 30 (hampir $ 100 dalam dolar semasa). Di samping itu, pemotongan standard telah ditingkatkan, dan kredit cukai pendapatan yang dapat dikembalikan dibuat. Akibatnya, beberapa penerima pemotongan cukai tahun 1975 tidak bertanggungjawab terhadap cukai pendapatan individu persekutuan. 3

Belanjawan persekutuan hampir seimbang pada tahun 1974, dengan defisit kurang dari 1% daripada KDNK. Walau bagaimanapun, defisit itu melonjak kepada 3.4% daripada KDNK pada tahun fiskal 1975 dan 4.3% pada tahun berikutnya. 4 Jelas bahawa pemotongan cukai tahun 1975, ditambah dengan peningkatan perbelanjaan dalam bentuk faedah pampasan pengangguran yang diperpanjang, membantu meningkatkan defisit persekutuan dan meningkatkan permintaan agregat. Akibatnya, kenaikan defisit ini adalah sementara sementara defisit dan hutang kerana sebahagian daripada KDNK jatuh pada akhir tahun 1970-an.

Sebilangan besar rangsangan Ford & # 8217s diberikan oleh pengembangan perbelanjaan kerajaan, baik pada bahagian yang dapat dikembalikan dari kredit cukai pendapatan yang diperolehi dan pada beberapa pengembangan kelayakan pampasan pengangguran. Walaupun pengangguran meningkat secara mendadak pada tahun 1974, perundangan undang-undang baru memastikan bahawa peratusan penganggur yang lebih tinggi benar-benar menerima pampasan pada tahun 1975 daripada pada waktu lain antara tahun 1967 dan hari ini. Titik tinggi dicapai pada bulan April tahun itu, ketika 81% dari semua pekerja yang menganggur menerima pampasan. Walaupun ekonomi pulih pada tahun 1976, peratusan pengangguran yang menerima pampasan rata-rata 67%, sangat berbeza dengan kadar sebelumnya dan seterusnya. Sebenarnya, antara tahun 1967 dan 1999, tempoh 1975-77 adalah satu-satunya tempoh tiga tahun apabila liputan melebihi 52%. 5

Perubahan cukai dan perbelanjaan pada tahun 1975 dirancang sebagai langkah pertama untuk mengatasi kemelesetan 1974-75 dan ditimbang tinggi untuk meningkatkan pendapatan dan penggunaan orang yang berpendapatan sederhana dan rendah. Ironinya, Alan Greenspan mengetuai Majlis Penasihat Ekonomi Presiden Ford & # 8217, yang bertanggungjawab untuk mengembangkan rancangan cukai ini.

Hasil rancangan itu memberangsangkan. Pertama sekali, penggunaan sebagai peratusan KDNK meningkat dari purata 61.7% pada tahun 1974 kepada 63.1% pada tahun 1975. Ia kekal pada tahap yang lebih tinggi hingga tahun 1979. Penggunaan sebagai peratusan pendapatan peribadi boleh guna meningkat dari rata-rata 88.3% pada 1974 hingga lebih 90% pada tahun 1976 hingga akhir dekad ini. 6 Sementara itu, pelaburan sebagai peratusan KDNK lebih rendah pada tahun 1975 daripada sebelumnya pada tahun 1974. Ia tidak pulih ke tahap 1973 hingga 1977.7 Dengan kata lain, seperti kebanyakan pemulihan kemelesetan, peningkatan penggunaan menyebabkan kenaikan dan pelaburan meningkat. Pelajaran yang harus dipelajari adalah bahawa kebijakan fiskal kontra-siklus yang berjaya memerlukan perubahan cukai dan perbelanjaan yang secara khusus menargetkan peningkatan penggunaan. Pakej rangsangan Presiden Ford & # 8217 melakukan hal itu dengan mensasarkan keluarga berpendapatan rendah dan sederhana kemungkinan besar akan mengeluarkan pendapatan tambahan.

Setelah menetapkan strategi ini, dasar monetari kemudian dirancang untuk menyokong usaha presiden untuk merangsang ekonomi. Kadar faedah nominal turun sepanjang tahun 1974, dan ketika mereka mulai meningkat pada awal tahun 1975, pemulihannya telah berjalan dengan baik. 8

Praktik pelaksanaan dasar fiskal kontra-kitaran oleh Presiden Ford & # 8217. Pemulihan bermula pada suku kedua tahun 1975. KDNK riil per kapita adalah negatif sepanjang tahun 1974 dan jatuh pada kadar tahunan 6.7% pada suku pertama 1975. Untuk tiga suku terakhir tahun 1975, bermula dengan suku ketika pemotongan cukai sementara berlaku, kadar pertumbuhan KDNK sebenar rata-rata melebihi 4%. Kadar pertumbuhan untuk tahun 1976 adalah 3.8%. Tahap pengangguran turun kepada 7.7% pada tahun 1976 dan terus menurun sepanjang sisa dekad ini. 9

Eksperimen Reagan (1981-83)

Pada tahun 1981, sebelum kemelesetan bermula, Presiden Reagan meyakinkan Kongres untuk menerima pemotongan cukai selama tiga tahun. Dia tidak membenarkan cadangannya sebagai cara memerangi kemelesetan tetapi sebaliknya menyatakan bahawa ia akan merangsang & # 8220 sisi penawaran & # 8221 ekonomi dengan meningkatkan insentif untuk bekerja, menyimpan, dan melabur. Pemotongan cukai itu ditimbang untuk mengurangkan beban cukai pembayar cukai dan syarikat berpendapatan tinggi. Kesannya juga ditangguhkan-sedikit pemotongan yang berlaku pada tahun 1981.10

Kemelesetan bermula pada suku keempat 1981, ketika pengangguran meningkat dari 7.4% menjadi 8.2%. Menjelang suku keempat 1982, kadar pengangguran mencapai 10.7%. Antara Oktober 1981 dan Disember 1982, penyusutan KDNK per kapita rata-rata 3.4% dari segi tahunan. 11 Pada tahun 1981 ekonomi memerlukan rangsangan, seperti pada tahun 1974-75, tetapi kali ini tidak ada yang disediakan. Sebenarnya, defisit persekutuan sebagai peratusan KDNK benar-benar menurun pada tahun 1981, disebabkan oleh peningkatan pendapatan yang disebabkan oleh & # 8220 bracket creep & # 8221 dalam cukai pendapatan individu dan dari kenaikan berjadual dalam cukai gaji untuk Jaminan Sosial. Juga tidak dilanjutkan sebarang kenaikan faedah pengangguran.

Pemotongan cukai pada tahun 1981 membawa pengurangan yang besar dalam kutipan cukai pendapatan di hujung spektrum pendapatan yang tinggi dan pengurangan yang besar dalam cukai korporat. Walau bagaimanapun, kesan terhadap penggunaan hampir tidak ada. Pada tahun 1982-tahun pertama penurunan kadar 10%-defisit belanjawan persekutuan meningkat secara mendadak. Penggunaan sebagai peratusan KDNK meningkat pada tahun 1982, tetapi pelaburan turun begitu banyak sehingga peningkatan permintaan agregat secara keseluruhan tidak mencukupi untuk mengangkat ekonomi keluar dari kemelesetannya. Kemelesetan berlanjutan hingga suku keempat tahun 1982 dan kadar pengangguran terus meningkat, mencapai puncak 10.7% pada suku keempat, ketika kitaran perniagaan berada di tahap yang rendah.

Sejak tahun 1975, kemelesetan tidak bertahan lebih lama. Akan tetapi, ini membuat kerosakan lebih besar pada ekonomi kerana jauh lebih dalam. Pengangguran berada di atas 8% untuk hanya empat suku selama kemelesetan 1974-75, dengan puncaknya datang pada suku kedua 1975 pada 8.9%. Pada tahun 1981-83, pengangguran berada di atas 8% untuk tujuh suku penuh, merangkumi empat suku pertama pemulihan. (Perlu diingat juga bahawa dasar monetari mungkin kurang luas pada tahun 1982 daripada tahun 1975 dan 1976.) 12

Walaupun pemotongan cukai Reagan dilancarkan sebelum kemelesetan tahun 1981 bermula, impaknya tidak pernah terasa sehingga tahun 1983 ketika pemulihan telah bermula. Pada tahun yang sama, defisit persekutuan sebagai peratusan KDNK mencapai 6.1%, ketika pengurangan cukai 10% kedua berkuat kuasa. Oleh itu, walaupun tahun 1983 menyaksikan pertumbuhan KDNK sebenar, pengangguran hampir sama pada tahun 1983 seperti pada tahun 1982, walaupun terdapat peningkatan dalam tahap penggunaan berbanding KDNK. Perubahan dasar yang mungkin mendorong penggunaan lebih banyak lagi, seperti pemberian faedah pengangguran yang berlanjutan, tidak berlaku pada tahun 1981. Peratusan penganggur yang sebenarnya mendapat faedah rata-rata hanya 45% pada tahun 1982 dan 44% pada tahun 1983, jauh lebih rendah daripada kadar dalam tempoh 1975-77.13

Pengalaman kemelesetan 1981-83 berbeza dengan perubahan dasar yang dibuat sebagai tindak balas kepada kemelesetan tahun 1975. Perbezaan utama adalah:

  • pemotongan cukai Reagan dimuat semula. Ia memberi kesan terbesar pada tahun fiskal 1983 (hasil cukai persekutuan sebenarnya menurun pada tahun itu).
  • pemotongan cukai Reagan tidak tertumpu pada pekerja berpendapatan rendah dan sederhana yang penggunaannya mesti meningkat untuk memulakan proses pemulihan. Ia juga tidak digabungkan dengan pengembangan pembayaran pindahan yang signifikan dalam bentuk pampasan pengangguran, seperti pemotongan cukai Ford & # 8217.

Penggunaan adalah kekuatan pendorong utama yang dapat mengeluarkan ekonomi dari kemerosotan. Pelabur terkenal secara konservatif. Sebaik sahaja mereka ditakutkan oleh kemelesetan, mereka biasanya menunggu penggunaan meningkat semula sebelum melakukan projek pelaburan baru. Pelaburan sebagai peratusan KDNK biasanya tidak akan meningkat sehingga lama selepas pemulihan sedang dijalankan. Pemotongan cukai yang lalu menunjukkan bahawa pemotongan Ford & # 8217 menyebabkan pemulihan pelaburan dalam satu tahun, sementara pemotongan cukai Reagan gagal mendorong pemulihan hampir dua.

Persamaan antara cadangan Presiden Bush dan # 8217 dengan kegagalan Reagan & # 8217 sebelumnya tidak dapat dipertikaikan. Seperti Reagan, rancangan Bush & # 8217 dirancang dengan baik sebelum tanda-tanda kemelesetan ekonomi semasa. Dan seperti pada tahun 1981, rancangan Bush & # 8217 mencoba menjual kelebihan doktrin dari sisi penawaran bahawa insentif dapat ditingkatkan dengan mengurangkan kadar cukai marginal bagi mereka yang dikenakan cukai pendapatan. Tetapi cadangan Bush melangkah lebih jauh daripada pemotongan Reagan & # 8217s-Bush & # 8217 lebih tertumpu pada keluarga berpendapatan tinggi dan bahkan lebih berat lagi.

Seperti yang dinyatakan oleh sejarah baru-baru ini, pemotongan cukai yang tertunda melambatkan kesan terhadap permintaan agregat dan meredakan usaha untuk memerangi kemelesetan. Dan pengurangan cukai yang mengabaikan individu yang kemungkinan besar mengeluarkan pendapatan tambahan tidak berfungsi dengan baik ketika tujuannya adalah untuk memerangi kemelesetan. Sebilangan besar rangsangan harus difokuskan pada keluarga berpendapatan rendah dan sederhana. Untuk tujuan ini, rancangan sejajar dengan cadangan & # 8220 dividen kepemilikan & # 8221 yang baru-baru ini dicadangkan untuk mengeluarkan setiap rebat satu kali rebat sekitar $ 500 yang diambil dari lebihan belanjawan persekutuan-akan meningkatkan permintaan agregat dan mempunyai peluang terbaik mengatasi kemelesetan yang akan berlaku.14

1. Untuk perincian rancangan Ford, lihat Laporan Ekonomi Presiden (1976, 50-57). Untuk perincian rancangan Reagan dan kesannya, lihat Michael Meeropol & # 8217s Surrender: How the Clinton Administration menyelesaikan Reagan Revolution (1998, 79-81, 91-92).

2. Lihat halaman web untuk Menyerah (Meeropol 1998) di http://mars.wnec.edu/

ekon / penyerahan /. Kadar pengangguran dan kadar pertumbuhan data KDNK sebenar per kapita terdapat dalam Jadual W. 4 yang terdapat di laman web tersebut.

3. Lihat Laporan Ekonomi Presiden, 1976, hlm. 51.

4. Lihat Laporan Ekonomi Presiden, 1998, hlm. 373.

5. Untuk data mengenai peratusan pengangguran yang menerima pampasan dari tahun 1967 hingga 1999, lihat Committee on Ways and Means, Dewan Perwakilan A.S. 2000, Green Book, ms 284-5.

7. Untuk pelaburan sebagai peratusan KDNK, lihat Jadual W. 4 di http://mars.wnec.edu/

8. Untuk kadar dana persekutuan nominal, lihat Jadual W. 2. Untuk kadar perdana nominal, lihat Jadual W.3.

9. Untuk kadar dana persekutuan nominal, lihat Jadual W. 2. Untuk kadar perdana nominal lihat Jadual W.3.

11. Lihat Menyerah, hlm 79-81.

12. Untuk data penggunaan sebagai peratusan KDNK, lihat Jadual W. 5 di http://mars.wnec.edu/

ekon / penyerahan /. Untuk data mengenai pelaburan, pengangguran, dan kadar pertumbuhan KDNK sebenar, lihat Jadual W.4. Untuk data mengenai defisit belanjawan persekutuan, lihat Laporan Ekonomi Presiden (1998, hlm. 373). Untuk kadar pertumbuhan penawaran wang dan kadar dana persekutuan nominal dan sebenar, lihat Jadual W. 1.

13. Untuk data mengenai liputan pampasan pengangguran, lihat Buku Hijau, op cit. Untuk data penggunaan, lihat Jadual W.5. Untuk data mengenai pelaburan dan kadar pertumbuhan, lihat Jadual W.4.


Dasar Taft dan Domestik: Selepas TR

William Howard Taft benar-benar berada dalam elemennya sebagai ketua eksekutif, sekurang-kurangnya dalam pengertian fungsi itu. Dia gemar mempelajari undang-undang dan melaksanakan kebijakan namun, tidak seperti Theodore Roosevelt yang sukarela, Taft membenci praktik politik praktikal yang diperlukan untuk mencapai agenda. Warisan tanah airnya merangkumi yang berikut:

  • Mempercayai kepercayaan. Semasa pentadbiran Taft, lebih daripada dua kali jumlah tuntutan antimonopoli dihasut daripada di bawah Roosevelt. Kemenangan besar dimenangi menentang Standard Oil of New Jersey dan American Tobacco Company (kedua-duanya dimulakan di bawah TR), Sugar Trust dan A.S. Steel. Roosevelt pada umumnya menyokong tindakan Taft ini, tetapi bukan tindakan menentang Morgan dan A.S. Steel mantan presiden itu mengkritik penggantinya dengan menyatakan bahawa Taft tidak dapat membezakan antara kepercayaan yang baik dan yang buruk. Menjelang tahun 1911, Taft mula mundur dari usahanya menjinakkan kepercayaan. Dia dipengaruhi sebahagiannya oleh para penasihat konservatifnya, yang ingin pemerintah memberikan kebebasan kepada perniagaan raksasa. Taft juga khuatir kepercayaan akan mula memberi kesan negatif kepada ekonomi keseluruhan. Dalam 18 bulan terakhir pemerintahannya, Taft semakin dilihat menyeret kerangka 300 poundnya di sekitar padang golf mewah dengan rakan-rakannya dari Republikan.
  • Pembaharuan Tarif. Taft menjanjikan pembaharuan tarif selama kempen 1908 dan muncul pada mulanya untuk mencapai tujuan tersebut. Namun, pada akhirnya, dia menolak untuk memperjuangkan keyakinannya dan dengan senang hati menerima Tarif perlindungan Payne-Aldrich.
  • Pemuliharaan. Ballinger-Pinchot Controversy yang banyak dipublikasikan meninggalkan kesan bahawa Taft tidak berminat untuk memelihara khazanah alam negara. Sebenarnya, dia membuat janji temu untuk menggantikan Pinchot sebagai ketua hutan dan ribuan ekar hutan belantara semula jadi ditambahkan ke kawasan cadangan.
  • Peraturan Perniagaan. Taft berjaya mendesak Kongres untuk memperkuat kuasa Suruhanjaya Perdagangan Antara Negeri. Akta Mann-Elkins tahun 1910 memperuntukkan:
    • The I.C.C. diberi kuasa untuk menangguhkan atau menetapkan kadar kereta api
    • Bidang tugas I.C.C. diperluas untuk merangkumi kawalan radio, telefon dan kemudahan telegraf
    • Mahkamah Perdagangan ditubuhkan untuk mendengar banding yang berasal dari I.C.C. keputusan mahkamah ini dibubarkan pada tahun 1913.

    Cukai Dosa

    Kerana cukai rokok dan alkohol dimasukkan ke dalam harga produk ini, banyak orang Amerika bahkan tidak tahu bahawa mereka membayarnya. Cukai tembakau persekutuan pertama kali diberlakukan pada tahun 1794, tetapi datang dan berlanjutan selama bertahun-tahun sehingga tahun 1864. Pada tahun itu, sekotak 20 batang rokok dikenakan cukai 0,8 sen. Pada tahun 2020, harga adalah $ 1.0066 setiap pek.

    Negeri juga mengenakan rokok. Pada tahun 2019, Missouri mengenakan cukai pada harga terendah 17 sen per pek, sementara New York mengenakan cukai pada harga tertinggi $ 4,35 per pek.

    Oleh kerana cukai rokok dan alkohol terdapat dalam harganya, banyak orang Amerika tidak menyedari bahawa mereka membayarnya.

    Minuman, arak, dan bir masing-masing dikenakan cukai yang berbeza oleh kerajaan persekutuan dan negeri. Pada tahun 2020, kadar cukai eksais tertinggi adalah $ 13,50 per galon minuman keras, $ 1,07 hingga $ 3,15 per galon wain bergantung pada kandungan alkohol wain, dan $ 18 per barel bir 31-galon. Setiap negeri menetapkan kadar cukai sendiri untuk setiap jenis alkohol.

    • Kadar cukai terendah untuk minuman keras pada tahun 2019 ialah $ 2.00 per galon di Missouri dan kadar tertinggi ialah $ 32.52 per galon di Washington.
    • Untuk wain, kadar cukai terendah pada tahun 2019 ialah 20 sen per galon di California, tertinggi ialah $ 3.26 per galon di Kentucky.
    • Bir dikenakan cukai rendah sebanyak 2.0 sen per galon di Wyoming dan harga tinggi $ 1.29 per galon di Tennessee.

    Pemerintah mula mengenakan cukai rokok dan alkohol untuk membayar hutang yang ditanggungnya semasa Perang Revolusi. Walau bagaimanapun, tujuan sosial juga telah lama mempengaruhi percukaian barang-barang ini. Semakin tinggi cukai, semakin besar kemungkinan orang Amerika akan tidak digalakkan mengambil tembakau dan alkohol. Tetapi kerana cukai tembakau dan alkohol adalah cukai tetap, ia dikenakan secara tidak seimbang kepada orang miskin. Dengan kata lain, kebanyakan orang miskin tidak digalakkan menggunakan tembakau dan alkohol, kerana golongan berpendapatan lain mampu membayar cukai yang lebih tinggi.


    Bagaimana Cukai Pendapatan Negara Bermula Di bawah Presiden Taft - SEJARAH

    3 Oktober adalah ulang tahun ke-100 Akta Hasil 1913 dan dengannya, cukai pendapatan persekutuan pertama abad ke-20. Undang-undang ini sering dibahas dalam perbincangan pembaharuan cukai, terutama oleh mereka yang yakin bahawa rejim cukai moden telah menyimpang dari asalnya.

    & quot; Orang ramai menyokong cukai pendapatan kerana pada asalnya bertujuan untuk hanya mengenakan kadar cukai yang sangat rendah hanya pada pendapatan tertinggi, & quot; tulis Raymond J. Keating dalam artikel tahun 1996 untuk The Freeman. & quotProponents berpendapat bahawa pindaan ke-16 Perlembagaan A.S. akan memaksa apa yang disebut sebagai 'perampok baron' untuk membayar cukai. Itu tidak seharusnya memberikan mekanisme bagi Washington untuk menjangkau kantong kebanyakan orang Amerika. & Quot 1

    Ada beberapa kebenaran hujah itu - tetapi tidak banyak. Dengan andaian bahawa niat dapat dijumpai paling baik di kalangan orang yang melakukan niat, tidak ada alasan untuk memberikan nilai normatif pada batas undang-undang asalnya. Pada tahun 1913 Kongres menetapkan tingkat tertinggi 7 peratus dan pengecualian tinggi yang menyelamatkan semua kecuali 2 peratus isi rumah sepenuhnya. Tetapi hanya lima tahun kemudian, kadar tertinggi 11 kali lebih tinggi. Sebilangan besar penggubal undang-undang yang sama yang memilih cukai yang ringan dan sempit pada tahun 1913 juga memilih cukai yang berat dan lebih luas pada tahun 1918.

    Namun, undang-undang tahun 1913 ini perlu diteliti kerana banyak hujah mengenai perundangannya masih hidup hingga kini. Sekiranya tidak ada yang lain, sejarah dapat mengingatkan kita bahawa isu kewajaran fiskal sama seperti sekarang.

    Presiden Wilson mempunyai beberapa idea berbahaya, sekurang-kurangnya pada pandangan banyak pemimpin perniagaan. Ketika mereka menunggu pelantikannya pada bulan Mac 1913, para penguasa & "feudalisme kewangan" mendapati pendapat Wilson mengenai tarif itu sangat bermasalah. 2 Presiden terpilih telah lama menyatakan bahawa bea masuk yang curam melindungi perniagaan dari persaingan yang sihat (dan, dengan berbuat demikian, mempromosikan monopoli). Wilson juga menegaskan bahawa politik menjadikan tarif & sistem kutipan dari sistem perlindungan yang paling besar yang pernah disusun. & Quot; 3 Akhirnya, Wilson percaya bahawa tarif itu licik. & quot; Sangat sedikit dari kita merasakan tarif gula kita, & quot; dia memerhatikan. 4

    Idea-idea itu menganggap pemimpin perniagaan jelas tidak bermanfaat. Yang lebih membimbangkan, bagaimanapun, adalah alat hasil baru Wilson yang mungkin dia gunakan untuk menetapkan tarif. Pindaan ke-16 disahkan hanya beberapa minggu sebelum pelantikannya, dan kebanyakan pemerhati mengharapkan presiden baru dan sekutu kongresnya bergerak cepat untuk membuat cukai baru ke atas pendapatan individu dan korporat.

    Dan mereka berjaya. Dunia bergerak lebih perlahan pada tahun 1913 daripada hari ini, tetapi lapan bulan setelah Wilson tiba di Oval Office, dia menandatangani undang-undang hasil 1913 menjadi undang-undang. Sebagian besar undang-undang dikhaskan untuk reformasi tarif, tetapi banyak pemerhati yang menetapkan pajak penghasilan. & quot; Dikeluarkan dari rang undang-undang tarif Demokratik oleh Mahkamah Agung lapan belas tahun yang lalu, sehingga dalam pusaran masa & quot pajak & kutipan kembali dari kubur di mana ia telah berehat dan mengetuk lagi di pintu Pentadbiran Demokratik, & quot; tulis Angus McSween dari the Philadelphia Amerika Utara.

    Pungutan pendapatan baru terbentuk di Dewan Perwakilan, dan terutama di kantor Wakil Cordell Hull, yang menyediakan rancangan awal. Seperti banyak Demokrat Selatan, Hull adalah juara lama dalam penghasilan percukaian, dan dia membuat sketsa pungutan tetap rendah pada sekumpulan kecil pembayar cukai yang sangat kaya.

    Tetapi sebilangan Demokrat mempunyai idea lain. Menurut Randolph Paul - salah seorang sejarawan fiskal hebat abad ke-20, serta seorang pegawai Perbendaharaan terkemuka pada tahun 1940 - Rep. John Nance Garner memimpin usaha untuk mendapatkan struktur kadar lulus. Hull enggan, bimbang bahawa kadar progresif akan membiarkan cukai baru rentan terhadap cabaran kehakiman dan politik. Namun, akhirnya, dia bersetuju untuk menamatkan pengajian secara sederhana. Harga dalam rang undang-undang Dewan melebihi 4 peratus. 5

    Versi House dari cukai pendapatan termasuk pengecualian $ 4.000 untuk kedua-dua pembayar cukai bujang dan berkahwin - hampir $ 100,000 pada tahun 2013 dolar. Wilson secara khusus meminta Hull untuk menetapkan pengecualian itu tinggi, kerana dia ingin & quot; membebankan sebilangan kecil orang (mungkin) dengan tanggungjawab yang terlibat dalam pentadbiran apa yang paling tidak akan menjadi undang-undang yang tidak popular. & Quot

    Setelah melewati DPR, tagihan tarif dipindahkan ke Senat, di mana Demokrat kiri dan Republik progresif berhasrat untuk menaikkan kadar cukai pendapatan. Jawatankuasa Kewangan menolak perubahan tersebut, sebaliknya memfokuskan pada tahap pengecualian. Khususnya, panel menurunkan pengecualian kepada $ 3,000 untuk pemohon tunggal tetapi mengekalkan angka $ 4,000 untuk pasangan suami isteri. Anggota kewangan membuat pengecualian kanak-kanak $ 500 (dengan maksimum $ 1,000).

    Ketika rang undang-undang tarif mencapai tahap rendah, Demokrat pemberontak dan Republikan progresif bekerja sama untuk mendorong kadar yang lebih tinggi, dengan beberapa pindaan berusaha untuk menaikkan kadar tertinggi setinggi 20 persen. Tetapi pengurus lantai Demokrat RUU, Senator John Sharp Williams, berusaha mengalahkan pemberontakan itu. & quot; Tidak ada orang yang jujur ​​yang dapat membuat perang atas kekayaan besar-besaran, & quot; dia menegaskan. Parti Demokrat tidak pernah melakukannya dan apabila Parti Demokrat mulai melakukannya, Parti Demokrat akan berhenti menjadi Parti Demokrat dan menjadi parti sosialis Amerika Syarikat atau lebih baik dinyatakan, parti komunis, atau parti kuasi-komunis, dari Amerika Syarikat. & Quot

    Williams mendapat banyak sokongan daripada Republikan lama seperti Henry Cabot Lodge dari Massachusetts, yang mengecam & quot; penyitaan harta tanah dengan kedok cukai. & Quot; Lodge menggesa rakan-rakannya untuk tidak mengubah & quot; pengenaan cukai ke atas rampasan kelas. & Quot 6

    Pemimpin demokratik dan sekutu Republikan mereka yang konservatif akhirnya bersetuju untuk berkompromi dengan pemberontak. Seperti yang disahkan oleh Senat, undang-undang cukai pendapatan menunjukkan kadar setinggi 7 persen - jauh dari 20 persen, untuk memastikan, tetapi juga jarak yang cukup baik dari tingkat tertinggi DPR 4 persen. Kadar Senat yang lebih tinggi berlaku dalam jawatankuasa persidangan, dan rang undang-undang tarif bergerak lancar ke peringkat akhir. Wilson dengan senang hati menandatanganinya pada 3 Oktober, dan cukai pendapatan baru (dibuat semula hingga 1 Mac) berkuatkuasa serta-merta.

    Kadar dan pengecualian bukan satu-satunya aspek yang dipersoalkan dari cukai baru. Ketika bergerak melalui Kongres, pengkritik memikirkan kerumitannya. "Saya rasa anda perlu masuk penjara," tulis Senator Elihu Root kepada wartawan. & quotJika itu adalah hasil dari tidak memahami undang-undang Cukai Pendapatan, saya akan menemui anda di sana. Kita akan mempunyai masa yang gembira, kerana semua rakan kita akan berada di sana. It will be an intellectual center, for no one understands the Income Tax law except persons who have not sufficient intelligence to understand the questions that arise under it."

    Administrative provisions of the law were controversial, especially the requirement that much of the tax be collected at source. Withholding had been used during the Civil War to collect taxes on some kinds of income, but the 1913 act envisioned a more ambitious regime. In particular, the law required withholding on dividend and interest payments paid out by corporations, as well as rent, interest, wages, and salaries paid by both corporations and individuals. (Eventually, critics would win the argument about withholding, persuading lawmakers in 1916 to repeal it. It would not reappear until World War II.)

    Another controversial aspect of the law was its geographic incidence. Observers understood that the new levy would fall most heavily on the Northeastern states (as had the Civil War income tax). Yankee lawmakers complained long and hard about that fact, arguing that the law's high exemption was to blame. But Hull, mustering well-rehearsed Southern arguments, insisted that the tax was sectional because "wealth first made itself sectional." In other words, the North paid more because the North telah lebih banyak lagi. "It would be monstrous to say that the receivers of great incomes which are drawn from every section of the country may segregate themselves and on the plea of segregation or sectionalism successfully exempt their entire wealth from taxation," Hull said.

    In the Senate, Sen. James Lewis offered an even more vigorous defense of the law's geographic incidence. In response to complaints from Root that New Yorkers would be overpaying, Lewis was openly scornful. "Who are the people of New York for whom the senator is so solicitous?" Lewis asked. "Are they those who breed around Wall Street and flock to the Waldorf-Astoria? Are they those whose names are seldom found on the assessors' lists, but who hover around the Mediterranean in the summer and the islands of the Caribbean in the winter?" 7

    For his part, Root claimed to support the income tax in principle, but he insisted that the high exemption was dangerous and unfair. "I am in favor of an income tax," he declared. "And I believe in the principle of it. I think it is fair, and I voted for the income tax amendment to the Constitution, and urged it upon my people. I have no fault to find with an income tax or a graded tax, but if you impose too great a tax upon the industrial States you will, to that extent, diminish their taxable resources for State or other local purposes." 8

    Ultimately, however, if Root had no problem with a graded tax, plenty of other observers did. Editorial critics objected to the high exemption as a form of class legislation. Matahari New York, for instance, called it "taxation of the few for the benefit of the many." And their crosstown colleagues were similarly unhappy. "The aim of the cumulative tax is to take from those who have much for the benefit of those who have little," The New York Times menulis. At the end of the day, such a tax would hurt the rich (and the economy) but do little to help the poor. 9

    Sesungguhnya, The New York Times had succinctly voiced its objections some four years earlier when the 16th Amendment first made its way to the states. "When men once get the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they are not easily cured of it," the paper warned. 10

    The 1913 debate over rates and exemptions did nothing to resolve those contentious issues. Indeed, they have remained at the center of most political tax debates ever since. And as modern politicians wrangle over tax reform, many point nostalgically to the low, narrow tax of 1913 as some sort of object lesson. In a 2011 presidential debate, for instance, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., eagerly observed that "when we got the income tax in 1913, the top rate was 7 percent. By 1980, the top rate was 70 percent."

    True enough. But, in fact, the rate had reached 77 percent by 1918, just five years after Congress created its first, single-digit levy. World War I explains the rapid escalation in rates, of course. But the willingness of lawmakers to transform the income tax in the face of national emergency tells us something about the way they viewed that tax in the first place. After all, lawmakers had other revenue options.

    But the income tax had several virtues. To begin with, it was already on the books, and its administrative machinery, while embryonic, was at least operational. That couldn't be said for most alternatives, including any form of broad-based consumption tax (other than the tariff, which was a poor revenue tool in wartime).

    But almost as important, the income tax struck many wartime lawmakers as fair. Which is no surprise, because many of those same lawmakers had voted for the tax -- and endorsed its fairness claims -- just five years before. The low taxers of 1913 were the high taxers of 1918. Necessity may have forced their hand during the wartime emergency, but lawmakers of the late 1910s were not somehow wed to the notion of low-rate income taxes. If the legislative majority was wed to anything, it was to the essential fairness of taxing income. And to taxing it progressively.

    2 Randolph E. Paul, Taxation in the United States (Boston: Little Brown, 1954), at 99. Unless otherwise cited, all quotations from political and journalistic sources are drawn from Paul's magisterial -- but maddeningly unfootnoted -- chronicle of the law's development.

    4 Woodrow Wilson, Kerajaan Kongres: Kajian dalam Politik Amerika (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1900), available at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/35861/35861-h/35861-h.htm.

    5 Sidney Ratner, Taxation and Democracy in America (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967), at 325-326.

    7 "Lewis Clashes With Root," Tribunal Harian Chicago (1872-1922) Sept. 3, 1913, at 5.

    8 "Root Wants to Tax Small Incomes, Too," The New York Times, Sept. 3, 1913, at 11.

    9 "Anti-Wealth Policy," The New York Times, Sept. 3, 1913, at 6.

    10 "An Unnecessary Amendment," The New York Times, July 8, 1909.


    A Brief History Of The Individual And Corporate Income Tax

    The U.S. government has been taxing its citizens for most of its history. However, during the early years, the tax was minimal and applied only to the affluent. Beginning with the Great Depression and FDR’s New Deal, the government has been growing larger and requiring more and more revenue. Where does the federal government derive its revenue? In this article, we will discuss the history of the individual income tax and briefly explore the corporate income tax.

    A Brief History of the U.S. Income Tax

    During the American Revolution (1775-1783), most states levied a faculty tax, which was a tax on a person’s property and ability to earn income from commerce or a trade. For several years after the Revolution, there was no national tax and the government provided very little for its citizens. The constitution of 1789 gave taxation powers to the federal government to “pay the debts and provide for the common welfare of the United States.”

    Because of the Civil War (1861-1865), the U.S. government levied a temporary income tax on individuals. Decades later, in 1894, Congress enacted the Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act, which included a 2% flat tax on incomes over $4,000 (the equivalent of $111,111 in 2015). This tax affected fewer than 10% of households and was the first income tax levied during peacetime. One year later, in Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan & Trust Co., the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that portions of this tax law were unconstitutional. Fourteen years later, in 1909, President William Howard Taft proposed the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. The states ratified the Amendment four years later in 1913 and the modern tax era was born.

    In 1913, the new income tax applied primarily to higher wage earners. The following table contains the marginal tax brackets in effect in 1913 and the equivalent amount in today’s dollars. For example, an individual earning $20,000 in 1913 would have been in the 1.0% marginal bracket. For perspective, $20,000 in 1913 is equivalent to $480,697 today (based on an average annual rate of inflation of 3.17% over the 102-year period).

    A few years later, the top marginal bracket was raised to 77% because funds were needed to finance World War I. The war ended in 1918. By the mid-1920s, the top bracket was down to 25%. This helped fuel the economic boom known as the “Roaring Twenties.” This also helped to create a bubble in the financial markets. When the bubble burst in October 1929, and because of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, the U.S. fell into its worst economic period of the twentieth century, the Great Depression. This assured the defeat of President Hoover. FDR became the 32nd President, taking office March 4, 1933. Looking for answers to the extremely harsh conditions in the U.S., FDR adopted the policies of British Economist John M. Keynes and created a massive new set of government programs. Dubbed the “New Deal,” this also created a problem. The expanded government needed more funding than was available in the upper class. The government increased taxes and, perhaps for the first time, reached into the middle class to meet its financial need. This monetary extraction from hardworking, middle-class America, likely prolonged the depression.

    We will now look at how much individuals and corporations have paid in income taxes as a percent of total receipts since 1934. The following graph shows the percentage of the federal government’s total revenue collected from the individual income tax and the corporate income tax.

    From 1934 until 1943, individual income and corporate income taxes provided a similar percentage of total federal government revenue (left side of graph). Beginning in 1943, the percentage collected via the corporate income tax began to decline. After bottoming in 1947, corporate tax receipts began to rise again, until peaking in 1952. From 1952 to 1983, the corporate income tax began a long and steady decline. Since then, the corporate income tax has ranged from 6% to 15% of total federal receipts.

    The individual income tax, however, has not experienced any such decline. Since 1944, the individual income tax has consistently provided 40% to 50% of total federal revenue. Today, the individual income tax is the largest income item in the federal budget.


    Big Bill Taft An Underrated and Underappreciated President

    Historic Tidbit: William Howard Taft was a compassionate man. When one of his chief aides, Archibald Butt, was despondent over breaking-up with his girlfriend, Taft encouraged him to take a vacation to Europe, which he did. How did he proceed to return home: on the Titanic. Butt was not among the survivors.

    One of my favorite Presidents, not in the area of accomplishments but for integrity, style, and a jovial, self-deprecating personality, is William Howard Taft. But as I hope to lay out, his 332 pounds was not the only thing that carried weight, as Taft’s achievements weren’t exactly skimpy either.

    My romanticism for our nation’s 27th President is tempered by my concession that attributes and efforts cannot make up for achievements when it comes to the highest office in the land, nor should it. Taft can never rank with the President’s whose decisions shaped, and in some cases saved the nation and the world, such as Lincoln, Truman, JFK, and Teddy Roosevelt. But he is often scorned by historians as being mediocre and, while the times he presided over were relatively dormant, his contribution to society’s progress and advancement still bear fruit today.

    “Big Bill Taft” as he was called, succeeded Teddy Roosevelt, who loved the limelight and whose “bully pulpit,” and “speak softly and carry a big stick” mantra made him suited for battle, as a “Rough Rider” and in the Presidency. Taft on the other hand wasn’t content to toot his own horn. So personalitywise, all agree Taft was no “Roosevelt-lite.” But he didn’t lack a sunny disposition. He was quite cheerful and policywise, the two were more closer than Roosevelt forces wanted to give him credit. The difference was he lacked a desire to hit hard and his stylistic focus was more on the Constitution.

    That said, it would surprise no one in saying Taft never aspired to the office of the Presidency. Not even in his earliest days. His wife aspired enough for both of them and in marrying Taft, was not shy about choosing a man who would someday be President.” Many, including his own mother did not want him to be President and Taft actually said upon his inauguration, accompanied by heavy snow, that he “always said it would be a cold day when I got to be President.”

    Still, Taft, born to a prominent Cincinnati family, was no stranger to political lineage. His father was an Ambassador and Attorney General under Grant. Taft’s talents and connections endeared him to a number of Presidents, which paved the way for the younger Taft’s meteoric rise. Among the positions he held: Collector of revenue under Arthur, Solicitor General under Harrison, Governor General of the Philippines under McKinley, and Secretary of War under TR. Taft’s heart even then was with the law, but he turned down two appointments for the Supreme Court. By 1908, the latter was grooming him as a successor, and he did so with the expectation that he would continue the “Square Deal’ agenda that had gained so much steam.

    Philosophically, Taft had every intention of doing so. He even used the term “square” when dealing with Congress saying, “their actions had better be square.” But he was not a “Rough Rider” and would only push so far. His statement shortly before taking office that “the chief function of the next administration is to complete and perfect the machinery by which those standards may be maintained, by which the lawbreakers may be promptly maintained and punished, but which shall operate with sufficient accuracy and dispatch to interfere with legitimate business as little as possible” seemed to sum that up. But he also had great fidelity to the law (“the President can exercise no power which cannot fairly be traced to some specific grant of power in the Constitution or act of Congress”), and at times, he may have lacked the personal skills to reconcile the two. But that said, let’s look at the record, shall we?

    Consider this. Taft advocated a Constitutional amendment implementing an income tax. He filed 90 anti-trust suits, far more than TR, and hammered railroad companies for seeking to raise rates 20% (Taft ultimately negotiated a compromise that was enforced by the Interstate Commerce Commission). Taft broke up the American Tobacco Trust as well as Standard Oil, and put his signature on the Mann-Elkins Act, which expanded prior law to put the telephone, telegraph, and cable companies under the ICC. He enacted a “national incorporation bureau for regulation and control of industrial enterprises doing interstate commerce When Attorney General George Wickersham said “probably 100 additional corporations would be called to account under the Sherman Act.” Taft biographer Jonathan Lurie said efforts to gain conservative support were “not strengthened.”

    Tidak berhenti di situ. Taft established the Federal Children’s Bureau and spoke of “conserving the public health by the enforcement of the Pure Food and Drug Act.” Postal savings and parcels were created. Lurie notes he fought for “workingmen’s compensation law” and an “age old retirement bill for government clerks.” enact a “national incorporation bureau for regulation and control of industrial enterprises doing interstate commerce.

    On the latter, I pose the following who don’t consider that progressivism. Wouldn’t those programs be compared to Social Security and Medicare, programs true conservatives would later oppose? And seeking loans for Latin America. In more recent history, wouldn’t that jive with the Mexican bailout that many on the right have frowned on? He supported the removal of Joe Cannon as Speaker, who was loved by the conservatives.

    Need more convincing? Taft’s commitment to Civil Rights was also unmistakable. He met with Booker T. Washington, and was in attendance for many public concerts started by his wife which were conducted by an African-American composer named Walter Loving (the band was called the Filipino Constabulary) which dated to his Philippine days. His appointment of Julia Lahrop to head the Children’s Bureau made her the first woman to head a federal agency.

    On immigration, Taft vetoed a law restricting immigration that would impose literacy tests, and spoke powerfully and eloquently against anti-semitism as early as his inaugural address, in which he urged the Russian government to ease restrictions on making American Jews with passports liable to the same stringent requirements as the Russian people, saying “no humane government could look with favor on a member of the family of nations which permitted such acts within it’s borders.”

    Taft had marvelous relations with the Jewish community from his boyhood days in Cincinnati, frequently visiting synagogues as President and becoming the first President to make an address from a temple lectern (though he erred by commenting on “the beautiful church”).

    On foreign affairs, Taft advocated a muscular approach and Biography.com credits the terms “shirt sleeve diplomacy,” “open door policy,” and dollar diplomacy” as having taken shape during the Taft administration.

    So how did Taft earn the ire of Roosevelt forces? Well, his handling of two high-profile episodes show that public relations was not his strong point. One was the “Payne-Aldrich” Act, which defined Taft’s first year. Taft had long advocated a lower tariff, a cause the progressives agreed and the first time the issue was touched since the Hayes Presidency. But when the Republican Congress sent him one with many modifications, and a reduction far less than he had advocated, Taft grumbled but didn’t veto it, He believed it to be the best possible measure Congress could produce, which, in the print age, didn’t go over well.

    The second, far less benign development involved the Gilbert Pinchot matter. Taft’s initial appointment of Richard Ballinger as Interior Secretary infuriated Roosevelt allies, who had hoped he keep James Garfield’s son in the position. Ballinger had been Mayor of Seattle and his relationship with unions were troublesome. But it was Ballinger’s sanctioning of Gilbert Pinchot, a Roosevelt confidant and head of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Division of Forestry that really stoked the fire. Ballinger found had breached procedural protocol in many designations of federal lands.

    William Ridings in his book, “Rating The Presidents,” noted that it was Taft “who developed legal procedures for setting aside land conservation” (71.5 million acres)and that “Taft failed to trumpet his positive record for conservation, which in many ways surpassed Roosevelt’s.” And as his Ballinger’s replacement, Taft named Walt Fisher, largely considered to be a progressive as Interior Secretary. But Progressives were furious at Pinchot’s firing, and for them, that was the storyline, notwithstanding the fact that he appointed a number of progressives to many other posts (Henry Stimson as War Secretary for example).

    The bottom line: Taft, accidentally or otherwise, embraced the view, as stated by Lurie bio that “the day had passed when it was clearly obvious that the least government was the best government. The duty of government to protect the weaker class by ‘positive’ law was now recognized.”

    But that didn’t assuage Roosevelt loyalists nor ultimately, the former President himself. TR, who during Taft’s first year largely stayed out of the way (an African exhibition kept him busy), was harshly critical of his predecessor in later years. He accused him of abandoning Roosevelt principles, and decided he wanted to reclaim his old job in 1912.

    Most thought Taft would’ve been all too happy to forego re-election but, not wanting Roosevelt to win, sought re-election as a Republican. Roosevelt of course formed the “Bull Moose” party, splitting the GOP, enabling Woodrow Wilson to take the Presidency. Taft took just two states — Utah and Vermont, but he was more despondent from his scars of the TR feud. On a train car before Election Day, Taft said Roosevelt was “his best friend” and began crying.

    It was thought that Roosevelt and Taft, each realizing their likelihood of winning was non-existent, both saw Wilson as the superior alternative. The feud lingered until the pair had a chance meeting at a restaurant in 1918 and exchanged hugs amid cheering onlookers.

    The ironic thing about Taft was that he often did take his case to the people. He travelled the country making countless speeches. But in an age of limited communication, that’s wasn’t enough. After the tariff imbroglio, he knew as much, acknowledging he was “carefully putting off those speeches from day to day.”

    If Taft had assumed office in 2009 and not 1909 (assuming he only had to deal with the problems of his time), he may have been better able to shape public opinion. Print journalism may not have been enough for him to make his case, although admittedly, not making himself or members of his administration available to the press was a detriment he caused himself. But in the age of a 24 hour media, that might not have been enough.

    WhiteHouse.gov called Taft “a distinguished jurist, effective administrator, but poor politician.” He was not a campaigner, once calling the trail “the loneliest four months of my life (imagine a modern-day two year cycle).

    The other side of Taft’s under-rated legacy was his personality, which was almost as large as the man himself. Roosevelt called him the “most lovable personality I have ever known” and few who knew him disagreed.

    Perhaps the biggest asset to Taft was his self-belittling sense of humor. Roosevelt called him “the most lovable personality I have ever known.” Quite often, his jocularity had to do with his weight. Called “Big Lub,” Taft once got stuck in the White House bathtub. Nellie had a new one built and that famous picture exist of four Mott Company workers sitting in it. Taft once sent a cable “large party in Hicksville waiting to catch a train.” Another time Taft said he yielded his seat on a street-car and “three ladies got in.”Once while vacationing, friends suggested they go swimming in the ocean to which another replied, “the President is using it.”

    The most famous example is perhaps a telegram he sent to to Secretary of War Elihu Root, saying he felt great after having gone horseback riding. Root’s reply “how is the horse?” Friends often worried about his health but Taft actually outlived adventurous TR and the fit Wilson in years and in age.

    Taft also proved his common touch in other ways. He kept cows on the White House lawn for hos own milk (one was named Pauline), started the tradition of throwing out the first baseball on opening day and became the first President to regularly use an automobile. But he was also the first President to take up golf, which did little to help his image. And many of his acquaintances

    Of course, eight years after his Presidency ended, Taft was able to fulfill his dream of serving on the Supreme Court (as a footnote, his relationship with colleague Louis Brandeis, who had fiercely questioned Ballinger over the Pinchot matter, was frosty if not tension filled). He said upon his resignation in 1930 that they were the happiest nine years of his life.” Two months later, he was dead at 72. And while historians may be at odds over his record, even his offspring yields few clues. His most famous became a very conservative Senator from Ohio who tried three times to get the Presidential nomination. His youngest son by contrast supported a number of initiatives by FDR.

    So how should history treat Taft? He once said ‘I don’t remember that I ever was President,” a reference to the fact that his love was the court. But Jefferson designed his own tombstone and made no reference to the fact that he was President, and that certainly cannot be forgotten. The New York Sun said “the name of President Taft will stand in the list of those Presidents…who served this country far better and more wisely than the people could see..” The New York World said Taft ‘has not awakened much enthusiasm, but he has created little antagonism.”

    It seems likely that Big Bill Taft, who sought to establish a “policy of harmony” with Congress would have little use for the political rancor today. Would he have the skills to change it? Tidak? Neither would TR for that matter. But be would bemoan the partisanship. And that said, we could surely use a little of the wisdom of “Big Bill Taft.”


    Modern trends

    The development of taxation in recent times can be summarized by the following general statements, although allowance must be made for considerable national differences: The authority of the sovereign to levy taxes in a more or less arbitrary fashion has been lost, and the power to tax now generally resides in parliamentary bodies. The level of most taxes has risen substantially and so has the ratio of tax revenues to the national income. Taxes today are collected in money, not in goods. Tax farming—the collection of taxes by outside contractors—has been abolished, and taxes are instead assessed and collected by civil servants. (On the other hand, as a means of overcoming the inefficiencies of government agencies, tax collection has recently been contracted to banks in many less-developed countries. In addition, some countries are outsourcing the administration of customs duties.)

    There has also been a reduction in reliance on customs duties and excises. Many countries increasingly rely on sales taxes and other general consumption taxes. An important late 20th-century development was the replacement of turnover taxes with value-added taxes. Taxes on the privilege of doing business and on real property lost ground, although they have persisted as important revenue sources for local communities. The absolute and relative weight of direct personal taxation has been growing in most of the developed countries, and increasing attention has been focused on VAT and payroll taxes. At the end of the 20th century the expansion of e-commerce created serious challenges for the administration of VAT, income taxes, and sales taxes. The problems of tax administration were compounded by the anonymity of buyers and sellers, the possibility of conducting business from offshore tax havens, the fact that tax authorities cannot monitor the flow of digitized products or intellectual property, and the spate of untraceable money flows.

    Income taxation (of individuals and of corporations), payroll taxes, general sales taxes, and (in some countries) property taxes bring in the greatest amounts of revenue in modern tax systems. The income tax has ceased to be a “rich man’s” tax it is now paid by the general populace, and in several countries it is joined by a tax on net worth. The emphasis on the ability-to-pay principle and on the redistribution of wealth—which led to graduated rates and high top marginal income tax rates—appears to have peaked, having been replaced by greater concern for the economic distortions and disincentives caused by high tax rates. A good deal of fiscal centralization occurred through much of the 20th century, as reflected in the kinds of taxes levied by central governments. They now control the most important taxes (from a revenue-producing point of view): income and corporation taxes, payroll taxes, and value-added taxes. Yet, in the last decade of the 20th century, many countries experienced a greater decentralization of government and a consequent devolution of taxing powers to subnational governments. Proponents of decentralization argue that it can contribute to greater fiscal autonomy and responsibility, because it involves states and municipalities in the broader processes of tax policy merely allowing lower-level governments to share in the tax revenues of central governments does not foster such autonomy.

    Although it is difficult to make general distinctions between developed and less-developed countries, it is possible to detect some patterns in their relative reliance on various types of taxes. For example, developed countries usually rely more on individual income taxes and less on corporate income taxes than less-developed countries do. In developing countries, reliance on income taxes, especially on corporate income taxes, generally increases as the level of income rises. In addition, a relatively high percentage of the total tax revenue of industrialized countries comes from domestic consumption taxes, especially the value-added tax (rather than the simpler turnover tax). Social security taxes—commonly collected as payroll taxes—are much more important in developed countries and the more-affluent developing countries than in the poorest countries, reflecting the near lack of social security systems in the latter. Indeed, in many developed countries, payroll taxes rival or surpass the individual income tax as a source of revenue. Demographic trends and their consequences (in particular, the aging of the world’s working population and the need to finance public pensions) threaten to raise payroll taxes to increasingly steep levels. Some countries have responded by privatizing the provision of pensions—e.g., by substituting mandatory contributions to individual accounts for payroll taxes.

    Taxes in general represent a much higher percentage of national output in developed countries than in developing countries. Similarly, more national output is channeled to governmental use through taxation in developing countries with the highest levels of income than in those with lesser incomes. Indeed, in many respects the tax systems of the developing countries with the highest levels of income have more in common with those of developed countries than they have with the tax systems of the poorest developing countries.


    For much of its early history, America had no federal taxation. However, over time, steady funding became a necessity and the government began introducing taxes to ensure that reliability:

    • President Lincoln (1861-1865) imposed the nation’s first federal income tax when he signed the Revenue Act of 1861. Designed to fund the Civil War, this temporary income tax saw several changes over a decade but ultimately ended in 1871.
    • President Taft (1909-1913) passed the 16th Amendment in 1909, which expanded the federal government’s ability to collect income taxes, and also introduced corporate income taxes.
    • President Wilson (1913-1921) added individual income taxes in 1913.
    • President Roosevelt (1933-1945) signed the Social Security Act, which imposed a “payroll” tax on both employees and their employers. These taxes are now the sole source of income for millions of retired workers.
    • Although the concept has been around since 1797, in 2013, President Obama finally established the first permanent estate tax, which collects revenues from the estate of a deceased person.

    Each of these tax types was momentous because they led to a new base of federal revenue that applied to all sectors of the population.

    Boosting federal revenues has also been necessary at times, and many presidents have increased the tax rates on both individuals and corporations to achieve national fiscal goals. President Truman is responsible for the largest tax increase in history when his Revenue Act of 1951 raised America’s tax contribution to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by just over 1.5 percent. By comparison, the GDP increase attributed to Obama’s Affordable Care Act was only 0.45 percent, and President Reagan’s tax increase in 1982 added only 0.8 percent.


    William Taft: Domestic Affairs

    William Howard Taft entered the White House determined to implement and continue Roosevelt's program. His central ambition regarding reform was to create an orderly framework for administering a reform agenda. His conception of executive leadership was primarily focused on administration rather than legislative agenda-setting. He felt most comfortable in executing the law, regardless of his personal feelings for the particular piece of legislation. However, during his presidency, Congress produced significant reform legislation. In one of his first acts in office, Taft called for a special session of Congress to reform tariff law through reduced rates.

    Among the significant pieces of legislation passed by Congress during Taft's presidency was the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910, empowering the Interstate Commerce Commission to suspend railroad rate hikes and to set rates. The act also expanded the ICC's jurisdiction to cover telephones, telegraphs, and radio. Taft also placed 35,000 postmasters and 20,000 skilled workers in the Navy under civil service protection. In addition, the Department of Commerce and Labor was divided into two cabinet departments with Taft's approval. He also vetoed the admissions of Arizona and New Mexico to statehood because of their constitutional provision for the recall of judges. When the recall clauses were removed, Taft supported statehood. And while he pushed the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment (income tax), he only reluctantly advocated the Seventeenth Amendment (direct election of senators). Among his most controversial actions, Taft promoted an administrative innovation whereby the President, rather than the disparate agencies of government, would submit a budget to Congress. Congress prohibited that action, but Taft's effort foreshadowed the creation of the executive budget in the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which gave the President new capacities for efficiency and control in the executive branch.

    Trust-Busting

    Taft's intent to provide more efficient administration for existing reform policies was perfectly suited for the prosecution of antitrust violations. More trust prosecutions (99, in all) occurred under Taft than under Roosevelt, who was known as the "Great Trust-Buster." The two most famous antitrust cases under the Taft Administration, Standard Oil Company of New Jersey and the American Tobacco Company, were actually begun during the Roosevelt years. He also won a lawsuit against the American Sugar Refining Company to break up the "sugar trust" that rigged prices. And when Taft moved to break up U.S. Steel, Roosevelt accused him of a lack of insight—unable to distinguish between "good" and "bad" trusts. By 1911, however, Taft began to back away from his antitrust efforts, stung by the criticism of his conservative business supporters and unsure about the long-range effect of trust-busting on the national economy. Most importantly, Taft had surrounded himself with conservative businessmen who shared his love for golf and recreation at fine resorts. His new business cronies isolated Taft from the progressive followers of Roosevelt who had supported his election.

    Presidential Missteps

    Taft stumbled dramatically on two important occasions as President. The first misstep occurred with his special congressional session to revise the tariff downward. This move activated a concerted effort by the protectionist majority in the Republican Party to persuade Taft to back off on tariff reform. In the struggle over the tariff, Senator Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island and Representative Sereno E. Payne of New York, representing big business, succeeded in pushing through a tariff (the Payne-Aldrich Tariff) that affected only modest reductions. Although during the course of congressional action Taft had threatened to veto a tariff bill with insufficient reductions, when the Payne-Aldrich bill came to his desk he signed it, later claiming it was the best tariff bill ever passed by Congress. Taft's reversal on tariff reform immediately alienated progressives who saw high tariffs as the "mother of trusts."The second misstep involved his dismissal of Roosevelt's friend, the chief forester of the United States, Gifford Pinchot. The affair stemmed from Taft's appointment of Washington-state businessman Richard Ballinger as head of the Department of the Interior. Ballinger held that Roosevelt had improperly closed large sections of federal public-domain lands to economic development, re-opened some tracts, including rich coal lands in Alaska that Roosevelt had previously designated not for sale. Consequently, Pinchot launched a public attack on Ballinger, and indirectly on Taft, leaving the President with no alternative but to dismiss Pinchot. The resulting explosion tore the Republican Party apart and drove an inseparable wedge between Taft and his once-beloved friend and mentor, Theodore Roosevelt.


    Tonton videonya: Senarai pelepasan cukai untuk isi eFiling LHDN (Mungkin 2022).